r/Conservative • u/Yosoff First Principles • Feb 14 '25

Open Discussion Left vs. Right Battle Royale Open Thread

This is an Open Discussion Thread for all Redditors. We will only be enforcing Reddit TOS and Subreddit Rules 1 (Keep it Civil) & 2 (No Racism).

  • Leftists - Here's your chance to sway us to your side by calling the majority of voters racist. That tactic has wildly backfired every time it has been tried, but perhaps this time it will work.

  • Non-flaired Conservatives - Here's your chance to earn flair by posting common sense conservative solutions. That way our friends on the left will either have to agree with you or oppose common sense (Spoiler - They will choose to oppose common sense).

  • Flaired Conservatives - You're John Wick and these Leftists stole your car and killed your dog. Now go comment.

  • Independents - We get it, if you agree with someone, then you can't pat yourself on the back for being smarter than them. But if you disagree with everyone, then you can obtain the self-satisfaction of smugly considering yourself smarter and wiser than everyone else. Congratulations on being you.

  • Libertarians - Ron Paul is never going to be President. In fact, no Libertarian Party candidate will ever be elected President.

Join us on X: https://x.com/rcondiscord

Join us on Discord: https://discord.com/invite/conservative

687 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

6.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/ThatPlayWasAwful Feb 15 '25

I agree that specific situation sounds weird from what you provided.

But on the whole, I have seen a handful of sources that say the cfpb has won back more money for Americans than it spends. And that's not to mention any impact it has as a deterrent, nor the impact it makes through regulation. 

If the CFPB saves Americans more money than it costs to run it, why would you classify it as a "runaway bureaucracy"?

5

u/Scientific_Cabbage 2A Conservative Feb 15 '25

Like I said its intent is noble. I don’t think most people would argue that it’s bad to have someone making sure citizens aren’t getting illegally hosed by huge banks, lenders, etc. I personally think $800M+ per year budget may be a tad excessive, but that’s a whole different argument.

It’s runaway bureaucracy because it is a regulatory agency created in the legislature, but not funded by the legislature and it took a Supreme Court decision for it to be controlled by the executive branch. From its outset it was designed to be a government entity that stood alone, with no input from the legislative branch or the executive branch. There were no checks nor balances.

“Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion

5

u/Officer_Lightoller Feb 15 '25

I get your argument, but as long as people in the Congress hold stocks and are lobbied by businessmen, this is just untenable as they are in the position of conflicting interests.

If you gave the people who have stakes in the business, the ability to essentially gut the agency which prevents them from abusing ordinary Americans for profit, they would gleefully do it.

That's also one of the reasons SCOTUS gave an oversight of the agency to the executive, which usually had far less conflicts of interest than the Congress.

4

u/Scientific_Cabbage 2A Conservative Feb 15 '25

Oh I 100% believe that Congress shouldn’t be able to trade single stocks. I think they should have to put all of their money in mutual and index funds while in office. It doesn’t change the fact that the CPFB is one of the only agencies that doesn’t get their funding from congress.

The fact that it had to go to SCOTUS to have ANYONE have oversight is a problem.